On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 12:13 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > I'm looking at it from the user's standpoint: if there is a script to > > respond to changes in the power supply, then that script should be run, > > for consistency's sake, even if the actual physical change occurs while > > the system is on standby. As to how that would actually be implemented, > > my idea is that the kernel should emit some sort of a trigger when the > > system comes out of standby, just as it does when an ACPI event occurs. > > I absolutely agree. However, this is our of the realm of the acpi-support > package. This package only offers scripts that are run in reaction to an ACPI > event, which as we all know is not triggered. Therefore I cannot see a bug in > acpi-support despite agreeing in that the situation is unsatisfying in > general.
Since you agree that there is a problem, whether it lie in acpi-support or not, this bug should be assigned to the package where the problem lies -- maybe the kernel -- but not closed. Maybe power management should be rethought and a package created which is oriented toward real-world power events, not just a particular protocol such as ACPI. Peace, John Lindgren -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
